From: Neon John <jgd_at_johngsbbq.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 23:32:04 -0500

I'd kill for symbolic links too, but can they be mapped back to the
FAT file system? I guess "shortcuts" are similar but I've never quite
figured out how to use them like symlinks.

If symlinks can't be mapped to FAT, then perhaps this could be done as
pseudo-links just for rockbox. Perhaps something like a .symlink file
in each directory where there are symlinks with the contents pointing
back to the actual file. Rockbox could transparently deal with those
just like files. Isn't that kinda how Win98 handled long file names?

John

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:19:27 -0800, ian douglas <id_at_w98.us> wrote:

>Bluechip wrote:
>> The difference is in the creation of the file, not in the useage of the
>> file.
>
>Yeah, he's basically asking for the equivalent of a symlink under Linux.
>
>Personally, I'd vote for something like this. I can never decide if I
>want to arrange all of my music as artist/album/nn - title or leave the
>song in variousartists/compilation_album_name/nn - artist - title or
>what ... with shortcuts/symlinks/etc it'd let me have both without the
>extra files hanging around.
>
>I'll be trying Rockbox for the first time this coming week, and I'll see
>how mentally energetic I feel to figure something like this out if
>there's enough interest?
>
>-id
>
>

---
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.johngsbbq.com
Cleveland, Occupied TN

Received on 2005-12-05